“This is what we stand for” is an oft-repeated phrase when social media posts create controversy, but few companies pause to ask whether values genuinely inform decisions or surface only when convenient. Ask an Ethicist columnist Vera Cherepanova examines where fiduciary duty lies when free speech, company reputation and political pressure collide.
I sit on the board of a listed company. Last week, an employee’s personal post about a polarizing political event went viral and dragged our company into the noise. The CEO wants them gone immediately to “protect the brand,” citing reputational risk. I agree the post was in poor judgment but hesitate about speed and optics of the response. Where does the director’s fiduciary duty lie here? — JD
Your dilemma captures one of the hardest tests of leadership today, when free speech, company reputation and political pressure collide. What often begins as a personnel issue can quickly become a governance crisis, and not because of the post itself but because of how the board responds. Reputation management is often framed as an act of prudence, but sometimes, it’s just panic.
In the age of instant outrage, companies often find out about a crisis at the same time the public does. That changes everything. The traditional PR playbook is much harder to implement when the whole world already knows what happened. Boards feel enormous pressure to respond swiftly — and to be seen responding — even as they are still gathering facts.
Still, that fact-gathering — and fact-checking — must happen. Fiduciary duty requires directors to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders, which includes protecting its reputation, but reputation is not protected by speed only.
The phrase “This is what we stand for” gets repeated a lot in moments like this. Yet in situations like this, few companies pause to ask whether they actually do stand for the things they say they do. Do your values genuinely inform your decisions, or do they surface only when convenient? When termination is driven more by external pressure than internal principle, it’s not good governance for the sake of the company’s long-term health. It’s managing the headlines.
Consistency matters, and so does proportionality and due process: facts verified, context understood. Boards’ ability to demonstrate that they provided informed oversight and decision-making is tied up in the integrity of the process. The reputational damage from inconsistency and hypocrisy can be far greater than from a single employee’s poorly worded post.
Another complication is that almost anything can be viewed as politically incendiary today, which was not the case in the past. The temptation for quick action to “get ahead of the story” is sometimes political opportunism in disguise. Boards under public scrutiny may convince themselves they’re defending values, when they’re really just hedging against personal liability.
A good way to avoid that trap is to apply a framework for moral deliberation that goes beyond legal compliance or PR reflexes:
- People (consequentialism): Who will be affected — employees, customers, shareholders — and what are the foreseeable consequences? Acting with empathy doesn’t mean ignoring risk; it means acknowledging the human impact.
- Values (virtue ethics): What virtues does the company claim — fairness, courage, respect? Does this decision live up to them, or betray them under pressure?
- Rules (deontology): What do the company’s policies actually say, and are they being applied consistently, regardless of politics or public mood?
Boards can also use these moments as learning opportunities. Ask: Are our social media policies realistic? Are expectations clear? Do we have escalation processes that allow for reflection rather than knee-jerk reaction? These questions and the above framework allow directors to go deeper than a tabletop exercise in communications strategy.
And finally, boards need to look at the content of the message itself. Was it hateful? Harmful? Or just uncomfortable? That makes all the difference. Speech that’s unpopular isn’t the same as speech that’s unethical. Free expression demands judgment, but so does corporate discipline.
When the Little Guy Asks You to Break the Rules
Why following policy can still be the compassionate choice
Read moreDetailsReaders respond
The previous question came from a procurement manager at a mid-sized construction company facing an ethical gray area in supplier relations. The dilemma revolved around a small contractor’s request to be paid in cash, an apparent bid to avoid taxes, and whether refusing such a request was true integrity or just bureaucracy. It raised deeper questions about fairness, empathy and the tension between compliance and ethics; when following the rulebook feels right, but compassion feels human.
In my response, I noted: “From a compliance perspective, the answer is clear: Companies can’t pay cash off the books. Records must be accurate, taxes reported and procedures followed. That’s non-negotiable.
“But your actual question is ethical: Is it wrong to go along with what looks like a modest request from someone who seems disadvantaged compared to wealthy corporations or executives?
“Most Americans do their part to fund public services, even knowing the system is imperfect. Roughly 85% of taxes owed in the US are paid voluntarily and on time. When someone avoids taxes, it shifts burdens to others. However modest the amount, integrity rests on honoring obligations we’ve collectively agreed to through democratic means.
“I understand your frustration with inequality; seeing individuals struggle while the wealthy seem to play by different rules can make “a little off the books” feel harmless, even justified. But if the system is unfair, the right remedy is democratic reform, not individual acts of noncompliance.” Read the full question and answer here.
Beautifully explored — Emily Miner
Such a great reminder that ethics isn’t just about following the rulebook, it’s about how we treat people when we enforce those rules. Sticking to compliance is necessary, but taking the time to explain the “why” and explore ways to support a struggling vendor builds trust and preserves relationships. — E-learning provider
Vera Cherepanova
